Knuckledragger

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/2696535550_131dfa78f2.jpg[/img This is the first alarm clock I ever owned, a Sony Dream Machine with 9-volt battery backup. I've been using it since 1985. In the preceding 23 years, I've had two other alarm clocks. Both were later iterations of the Sony Dream Machine model. They had ugly LED displays, vs. this one's gorgeous vacuum fluorescent one. They also died on me at most inopportune times, while this one has kept on ticking. At some point, the power cord became quite frayed, and the clock would lose power if I moved it. Two days ago it bit me with a small jolt of electricity. I spent half an hour today taking it apart, cutting out the bad section of cord, making a splice with some crimp sleeves, and re-assembling it. The clock once again works like a charm. As a side note, this is the first shot I've taken using a gray card and custom white balance mode on my 30D. I think it came out pretty well.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/319318036_bb0d36de65.jpg[/img

Fairy farts.

After blathering in several different threads about photography, and blindly looking around for an already extant thread, I'm making this one. The purpose here is for me continue to natter on about my mad obsession with light painting, and maybe even get a response or two. I've just posted about my issues with cross processing and slide film development, as well as discussing lenses in the recently bought thread.

*chuckle* The 70-200 F/2.8 IS might make your wallet lighter, but it has quite the opposite effect on everything else. I'm not a big zoom person (I like fast primes, faster primes, and anything that has excellent bokeh) but were I to get a 70-200, it would be the F/4 IS version. It's newer than the F/2.8, about 3/4 the price and half the weight. It's also sharper than the F/2.8 at similar apertures. That said, when you need a full stop more light, there is no substitute for a bigger aperture. I hope that monster zoom serves you well. The 100-400 is a beast, nicknamed the "Africa lens." IIRC, it's a push-pull zoom, which is enough to keep me away from it. If you need that kind of focal length, it is an excellent performer. Certainly, that's a good price for it. Similarly, $400 for the 17-40 is a steal, assuming it's a clean copy. The 17-40 is one of the real bargains in the L range (where "bargains" do not exist). It's a decent walk around lens on an APS-C sensor (I have a 30D) but that's not my real intention for it. I have two film bodies, a Rebel G (old, low-end model, but well built) and a Rebel K2 (new, decent feature set, but built like a toy). I got both for chump change, it's really a buyer's market for 35mm film bodies, barring exotics like the EOS1v, and the Nikon F5 & F6. My plan is to use the 17-40 as my primary film lens. I do mostly landscapes with film, for which the 17-40 is of course ideally suited. I have several excellent manual focus portrait lenses for use when necessary. I've used two copies of the 100mm F/2.8 macro, and I found it to be quite a solid piece of glass. It's decent for portraits, but the 200mm F/2.8L is sharper at distance, and has better bokeh. It of course rocks at macro, but if you're serious about that, budget for a ring flash. It's hard to get any DoF at macro distances, without stopping down like crazy. At least this is what my own limited experiences has taught me. $350 is quite a good price for one.

I am so stupidly busy with house renovations that I don't have time to list the insane things I am doing. That said, I got a call from Ritz Camera today. I dropped off a roll of film with them the week after last, and asked to have it cross processed (when print film is developed as slide film.) The girl behind the counter said they had to send it out to a lab to do that, and it'd take 5 additional business days. I said fine. Today I heard from the manager of the Ritz store, who said that the lab returned the undeveloped film, saying they won't touch it. I'm doubly pissed by this. The film is boring-ass Kodak Gold 200, which looks like shit when developed conventionally. Also, I've now lost over a week, and no matter what I do, the film won't be done before I leave for Martha's Vineyard on Sunday. So, this being the probably-not-appropriate place to ask.... anyone head case photographers (that's an redundancy if I ever heard one) have any suggestions for photo labs I could pester to get this roll cross processed? I need a good lab for slide film anyway; I plan on returning from MV with an exposed roll of Velvia (shot through my new 17-40 ultrawide).

The Photographer's Eye Nash Editions: Photography and the Art of Digital Printing (VOICES) Ansel Adams: 400 Photographs Matias USB 2.0 Keyboard & Mouse White Mac Canon EF 17-40mm F/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras All are fun, but that last one = ;D;D

YouTube - On-camera tour of my Betamax Library - 1978!!!

The people doing the work are professionals. I just write the checks. I will mention this to them, however.

I'm replacing both doors on my house, and repairing the mud sill on the south side. The problem is that there is a concrete patio in front of it, which is the roof to a bomb shelter (yay cold war era houses!) The patio is not graded properly, and water collects between it and the house. In order to fix this, we have to jack up the house a couple inches. The concrete is for footers, and the lag bolts are to attach huge steel beams to the side of the house. This job keeps expanding in scope as we find out more about how the house was built. I just learned that the original front door is framed incorrectly, and there isn't room for the new one to be hung correctly without serious modifications to the entryway. I also have to clear off a 20 foot section of wall space in the basement. All of my lighting equipment happens to be in that spot.

Two Brosco exterior doors ($550 each new), got the pair for $400 27 lag bolts + washers 3 12' sprice 2x6s 880 lbs of concrete 30 feet of rebar a bunch of other small items too trivial to list 70+ man-hours of labor (so far) -- why I won't be spending any money on audio in the foreseeable future

SERIOUSLY DUDE WHAT THE FUCK? Not remotely safe for work. Possibly not safe for home. Definitely not safe for cake.

I work with lasers that have a comparatively tiny output (5-50mw) and I carry a pair of 532nm safety glasses in my kit. I make it a point to never scan the crowd with anything above 15mw (scanning) and keep all static beams 5 feet above the audience (DJs are scum and should know better.) I don't normally have to wear the goggles (they look like funky yellow shades), but they are there if I need them. I'm already blind in one eye, so why fuck around?

50 year old Macallan (1952) $520 50 year old Macallan (1940) $2000 As above, in fancy container. $10,000 As above, in ridiculous container. According to this, that last one is over $167,000. I have trouble believing that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=belhHKNQLpc

Next thing you're going to tell me someone else designs your amps. ... I'll get my coat.

That Justin is one multi-talented fella.

x2. I like it.